State v. McDonald
Decision Date | 30 August 1921 |
Docket Number | 16267. |
Citation | 116 Wash. 668,200 P. 326 |
Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE v. McDONALD. |
Department 2.
Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; Sam. B. Hill, Judge.
Fay McDonald was convicted of forgery, and appeals. Affirmed.
C. T McDonald, F. W. Girand, and C. W. Greenough, all of Spokane for appellant.
J. B Lindsley, W. C. Meyer, and Clarence A. Orndorff, all of Spokane, for the State.
The information in this case charged the defendant with forging the name of the payee named in a certain check. The state's testimony tended to show that one Mabel J. Musser drew her check to the order of Mrs. Wonderlick for $93.33 and that the defendant wrongfully obtained possession of this check and committed the forgery by indorsing the name of the payee on the back thereof. She was convicted, and has appealed to this court.
The appellant first complains that the court permitted the state to introduce in evidence a certain bill of sale given by the defendant, and also a certain check signed or indorsed by her. It seems to be contended that these instruments were not admissible, because they did not, in any way, tend to establish the crime with which appellant was charged. Those instruments showed the signature of the appellant and were introduced for the purpose of comparing the signatures on those instruments with that which was claimed to be a forgery. For this purpose the court properly admitted these papers in evidence.
It is next contended that it was error to permit the state to introduce testimony to the effect that the forged check was presented at a certain store in Spokane for payment; such presentation not having been made by the appellant. There was testimony, however, tending to show that the check was presented by appellant's sister, Marie McDonald. But if this testimony should be considered inadmissible, because it failed to connect the appellant with the alleged crime, it certainly was not prejudicial, and under no circumstances could it be said that the error, if it was such, would be cause for reversal.
The state's testimony tended to show that the check given by Mabel J. Musser to the order of Mrs. Wonderlick had, at the request of the maker, been delivered into the possession of one McNutt, for the purpose, doubtless, of the same being delivered by him to the payee; that McNutt had this check in his possession when he visited the appellant and her sister at their rooms in the Wolverine Apartments and that while in those rooms McNutt was killed, and his body thereafter buried some distance from Spokane; and that the body of the dead man had been disinterred, and the check was not then upon his person, although other personal articles were found. The appellant particularly objects to that portion of the testimony concerning the killing of McNutt...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Brown
...charged, excepting where they are closely connected with the crime charged and furnish evidence material to that crime. State v. McDonald, 116 Wash. 668, 200 P. 326; State v. Kaukos, 109 Wash. 20, 186 P. 269; v. Sigler, 116 Wash. 581, 200 P. 323. The general rule is succinctly stated in Sta......
-
State v. Dinas
... ... guilt of another distinct offense.' State v ... Geddes, 22 Mont. 68, 55 P. 919 ... See ... State v. Sigler, 116 Wash. 581, 200 P. 323; ... State v. Kaukos, 109 Wash. 20, 186 P. 269; State ... v. McDonald, 116 Wash. 668, 200 P. 326 ... 'Where the motive for the crime charged is the ... concealment of some other crime either by destroying the [129 ... Wash. 81] evidence of such other crime or by killing a ... witness who could testify relative to it, the evidence of ... ...
-
State v. Kelly
... ... furnished evidence which was material and proper. Testimony ... connecting a defendant with another and distinct crime, if it ... is closely associated with the crime charged and furnishes ... evidence material to that crime, is admissible. State v ... McDonald, 116 Wash. 668, 200 P. 326; State v ... Stevenson, 169 Wash. 10, 13 P.2d 47 ... It is ... said that the court allowed too wide a latitude in permitting ... evidence as to the complaint which the complaining witness ... and the other girl made to the service ... ...
-
Smith v. State, A-12221
...fact alone would not deprive the State of the right to show how the appellant might have become possessed with the check. State v. McDonald, 116 Wash. 668, 200 P. 326. See also People v. Klopfer, 61 Cal.App. 291, 214 P. 878, wherein it was held permissible to show the larceny of a check wit......